FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.





ocalhoun
Its a good thing that Bush wanted to attack Iraq and remove Saddam!
Its also good that we invaded Afganistan.

For years the Christian organization Voice of the Martyrs has had the downfall of both Osama and Saddam on their prayer list.

The downfall of these two regimes has been an answered prayer to hundreds of thousands. (both regimes were very bad about killing christians)
myrevolt
WTF!? you are of course entitled to your opinions...but...think Attorney General Palmer (1920s) went overboard with his anti-communist propaganda and imprisoning 10,000 suspected communists. ahem. sound like modern day? sending people to our base in Cuba w/o any rights or even charged a specific crime. The Patriot Act is just the new Espionage & Sedition Acts. It infringes on constitutional rights, the Bill of Right, freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to a speedy trial. oh but in the name of threat we can throw those out. guess what, if you give a corrupt government an excuse like that, they will take you for all your worth. Terrorists. Its Bush's Red Scare. yeah suicide bombers, well they have been around forever, 'tis nothing new, maybe stop oppressing people or else they will revolt (Iraqi rebellion against US Coalition, think China's Boxer Rebellion). maybe some of these politicians should do their homework. history repeats itself.

oh and I don't care about ones religious beliefs (the first amendment protects that; so belief whatever you wish) but this country was built on keeping the State (government) and church (religion) seperate. saying that we are wiping out a religion (Islam) b/c of christianity. eh reminds me of the Crusades, and we all know how those went.
ocalhoun
The bill of rights does not apply to anyone who is not an United States citizen.
Anyway I'm not referring to the "War on Terror" I personally believe the only way to win that is nuclear holocaust.
I'm just refering to the war upon these particular countries.
izcool
I do agree that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but George W. Bush was quoted with saying this on finding Osama Bin Laden :

Quote:
I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.


Doesn't care ? He's the person who was threatening to attack America (George W. Bush got a report a few days before it happened about how Osama was going to attack America by hijacking airplanes, he didn't read it, but instead, he went fishing) and he didn't take it seriously.

Think about it. Rolling Eyes

- Mike.
Huhnteufel
Quote:
The downfall of these two regimes has been an answered prayer to hundreds of thousands. (both regimes were very bad about killing christians)


So, is this to say that this organization you speak of will only be concerned of cruel treatment and murdering if it affects christains? You also show no concern for the many deaths that came to this downfall. Are you and this organization satisfied that these regimes were knocked out at the cost of the lives of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers doing there duty, the lives of innocent civilians, the lives of American soldiers? Were all these deaths justified in your perspective, to knock out a couple of men who lead regimes that were "very bad about killing christains"?

Forgive me for saying, but these do not seem like very christain attitudes to me.
Bondings
I really doubt that the ba'ath party purposely killed a lot of christians. Ba'athism has been founded by ... a christian!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aflaq

ocalhoun wrote:
Anyway I'm not referring to the "War on Terror" I personally believe the only way to win that is nuclear holocaust.

Also, never mention these kind of things on this forum again, it could be interpreted as racism or worse and is certainly not tolerated!
d722002
We were right to go in to Iraq. It says right in the constitution that we are supposed to promote peace and democracy around the world. And thats what were doing now.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:


ocalhoun wrote:
Anyway I'm not referring to the "War on Terror" I personally believe the only way to win that is nuclear holocaust.

Also, never mention these kind of things on this forum again, it could be interpreted as racism or worse and is certainly not tolerated!


Shocked

Damn. I must have missed the 'racial' portion of that quote, Bondings.

So we're not allowed to voice opinions on how to deal with terrorists now? Because I'd nuke the bastards too! (The terrorists, that is.)
SunburnedCactus
I think the faux pas was the word "holocaust".
Bondings
"The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of various ethnic, religious and political groups."
It's mostly used to what the nazis did, but can also be applied to other ethnical groups.

Quote:
If I was in his place, however I would have just warned the UN to get out and nuked Baghdad.

He didn't mean terrorists, he probably meant all muslims.

I won't ever allow the promotion of a holocaust. Evil or Very Mad
ocalhoun
*sigh*
I was not advocating nuclear holocaust, just saying it was the only way to win "the war on terror" (and by implication, since the likelyhood of the US resorting to this is quite low, suggesting that it is improbable that the US will win the war on terror): Therefore I was not flaming.
However, I will concede that "Holocaust" may have been a poor word choice.
Bondings wrote:
"The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of various ethnic, religious and political groups."
It's mostly used to what the nazis did, but can also be applied to other ethnical groups.

I'm not changing it at this time because I can't think of a better word to replace it.
eday2010
Both regimes were indiscriminate about who they killed. It didn't seem like they cared what religion you were; they cared about whether you obeyed them or not.
coolclay
Quote:
Are you and this organization satisfied that these regimes were knocked out at the cost of the lives of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers doing there duty,, the lives of innocent civilians, the lives of American soldiers?


Now who is killing the most innocent civilians, Iraqi and Afghan soldiers? The terrorists are duh! Now who is the occupation fighting? Terrorists duh! How do have a problem with the occupation, fighting murderers (terrorists) that kill the people, and the Army of their own country.
LeviticusMky
Hey, great idea guys.

What we should do is kill everyone who opposes us! Then we'll be safe. We should just react to hatred against us by killing those who speak out against the US and Christianity.

I fully believe that the only way to end the cycle of killing is to keep killing. It's the only thing that makes sense. We kill all the killers, so that way there will be no more killers! Well, except for us, cause we're exempt, right? We're on the RIGHT side of the moral equation, we have GOD on our side.

Yeah. That's my two cents.
coolclay
Sounds good to me Laughing
coolclay
Killing and hatred is part human nature. There is nothing anyone can do about it, besides altering our DNA or some crap. Or we could all just smoke some dope and sing kumbaya like the rest of the peace loving hippies.
Bondings
Quote:
What we should do is kill everyone who opposes us!
...
I fully believe that the only way to end the cycle of killing is to keep killing.
...
We're on the RIGHT side of the moral equation, we have GOD on our side.

So what exactly makes you different from a terrorist?

They kill everyone which opposes them (Americans and others in this case).
They keep killing till they 'win'.
They believe that they are on the right side of the moral equation and have god(allah in this case) on their side.

Killing someone makes you a murderer yourself, no matter how much your god supports you.

Quote:
Now who is killing the most innocent civilians, Iraqi and Afghan soldiers? The terrorists are duh! Now who is the occupation fighting? Terrorists duh! How do have a problem with the occupation, fighting murderers (terrorists) that kill the people, and the Army of their own country.

First of all Saddam Hussain was a very cruel dictator, but not a terrorist like Al Qaeda. He only cared about himself. His party was founded by a Christian and put into power thanks to Americans, just like Bin Ladens Al Qaeda and the current government of Iran. All put in power by America to protect the world from communism.

Anyway, another fact. How many people were killed by Al Quada before the war in Iraq? 3000 or 4000? There was an earthquake in Pakistan/kashmir some time ago. Almost 100.000 people were killed and millions of people are still homeless and a lot of them will die if no action is taken. Instead of going to Iraq, you should have helped those people in a large action to rebuild their houses/region. This would have given you a very good image in the world, might even make you popular again and would certainly have a huge impact on terrorism, certainly in the long run. Only a small fraction of the money you put in the war, would have been enough.

Removing the taliban and Saddam were very good things but won't even stop terrorism. Almost all terrorists from 9/11 came from ... Saudia Arabia, an ally of America. Not from Iraq or Afghanistan. The chance that a new - maybe even worse - dictator will show up after you leave, is very big.

By going to war in Iraq, you might have killed a few terrorists, but also created even more of them. Terrorism is not a country and can't be destroyed by bullets and nukes.

Just to give you an example of what real terrorists are. There was a christian girl of 18 years old in Belgium with nothing to do with muslims. I have to add that she was very easy to influence. She then married a Belgian muslim and converted to the islam. A few years later she divorced and married immediately with another muslim and started to cover herself completely except for her eyes and never left her house. She also lost all real life contact with her parents - only mobile phone contact was left. Anyway, her second marriage was most likely just a coverage for her training. Afterwards, she left to Syria and ended a few weeks later as a suicide terrorist in Iraq. Luckily she only killed herself.

This just to show that terrorism isn't bound to a single country and that the war in Iraq will only make it easier to influence people to become terrorists.

However, terrorists need at least some ground to blame you in order to influence people. To simplify it a bit, compare 'Americans are bad because they are invading our countries and killing/torturing muslims' with 'Americans are bad because they give us food and houses'. Fighting dirt with dirt is not a good solution. To be as 'clean' as possible is the only possible solution in the long run.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
...

They kill everyone which opposes them (Americans and others in this case).


No, Bondings. They kill those that don't believe like them, not that oppose them.

Quote:

By going to war in Iraq, you might have killed a few terrorists,


No, Bondings. We killed over 50,000 terrorists.


Quote:
To be as 'clean' as possible is the only possible solution in the long run.


By clean, what do you mean? That we should sit back and let them continue to kill innocents that refuse to follow the teachings of Alah? Becasue that's what's happening. The radical islamics/muslims have been doing it for CENTURIES.

Only now do they have the money to actually succeed. And they very well could, if people keep believing you can 'reason' with them.
Bondings
S3nd K3ys wrote:
No, Bondings. We killed over 50,000 terrorists.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Fact is, the US has killed less than 1,000 Iraqi civilians.

By my knowledge, only 25 terrorists were involved in the attacks on 9/11. Of course, there were a lot of other terroristic actions, but you'll never reach 50.000. There are and were never 50.000 terrorists in Iraq. Why? Because before being called a terrorist, you first need to blow something up or commit any other terroristic action. Or maybe, does that number include soldiers of Saddam? You hardly can call those terrorists.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
By clean, what do you mean? That we should sit back and let them continue to kill innocents that refuse to follow the teachings of Alah?

With clean, I mean that you shouldn't give terrorists reasons to hate you.
With clean, I mean stick with the ideals of freedom, liberty and justice. Always and for everyone. No exceptions.
With clean, I mean help and build instead of destroy(war).

-By torturing prisoners (wether they are terrorists are not) you give yourself a very bad image to the whole world. Those things should never happen.
-By putting prisoners in prisons all over the world because that way you don't have to obey your own laws and be able to torture them and detain them without trial nor proof.
-By going to war in Iraq, you only gave terrorists more reasons to hate you. They don't listen to your explanation that the war was justified. They only believe that 'unbelieving dogs attacked a muslim country for cheap gasoline'.

-What about first solving the Israel-Palestine conflict? A solution acceptable for both sides and not only Israel?
-What about using the money of the war to build up countries? By building houses and schools. Because education does help a bit against terrorism. And terrorists are nothing with food and houses. It's very easy to make a bomb. You can easily make a bomb with soap, a few other cheap ingredients and a mobile phone/watch to detonate it.
-What about standing up for human rights, even those of prisoners? What about standing up against every form of racism and injustice and the equality of all religions? What about standing up for peace?

Ever wondered why the popularity of America of a few decades ago turned into hate? Ever wondered why people don't like America anymore? It used the be the symbol of freedom. Don't turn it into the symbol of hate and oppression. Is this solely because of the influence of 'liberal' media all over the world?
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:

With clean, I mean stick with the ideals of freedom, liberty and justice. Always and for everyone. No exceptions.

Freedom and liberty let people do what they want, which is usually immoral or wastefull.

The main reason Islamic fundametalists (not all terrorists) have a grudge against the US in the first place is the actions of the populace.

Terrorisim will never stop unless all nations of the world completely give into all the terrorist's demands. (this probably still wouldn't work as not all terrorists agree on their demands)
edallica
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bondings wrote:
...

They kill everyone which opposes them (Americans and others in this case).


No, Bondings. They kill those that don't believe like them, not that oppose them.

Quote:

By going to war in Iraq, you might have killed a few terrorists,


No, Bondings. We killed over 50,000 terrorists.


Quote:
To be as 'clean' as possible is the only possible solution in the long run.


By clean, what do you mean? That we should sit back and let them continue to kill innocents that refuse to follow the teachings of Alah? Becasue that's what's happening. The radical islamics/muslims have been doing it for CENTURIES.

Only now do they have the money to actually succeed. And they very well could, if people keep believing you can 'reason' with them.


this guy is clearly on the wind up and shouldn't be permitted to go on like he does. the mannor in which this person posts in this type of topic is clearly ment to upset people. 50,000 terrorists? how the hell can you come up with a figure like that?!
ocalhoun
edallica wrote:
the mannor in which this person posts in this type of topic is clearly ment to upset people.


Is that immoral or illigal? I think not.
izcool
LeviticusMky wrote:
Hey, great idea guys.

What we should do is kill everyone who opposes us! Then we'll be safe. We should just react to hatred against us by killing those who speak out against the US and Christianity.

I fully believe that the only way to end the cycle of killing is to keep killing. It's the only thing that makes sense. We kill all the killers, so that way there will be no more killers! Well, except for us, cause we're exempt, right? We're on the RIGHT side of the moral equation, we have GOD on our side.

Yeah. That's my two cents.


Well, that's another thing that Hitler did. You were either with his views or against his views. Heaven help you if you didn't like his views and lived in Germany, you would be killed since you were against him. Rolling Eyes

- Mike.
benwhite
The consitution does not prescribe preserving democracy worldwide. The notion that America should become involved in international politics came with the Monroe Doctrine, a completely separate and initially controversional document from the early 19th century. At the time of the constitution, there were very few democratic countries (namely Britain and France), and the type of democracy was significantly different than that seen in today.

And, the Taliban is rising back to power in Afghanistan. Oops. Too bad we stopped doing the job we started there before we got involved in Iraq. Osama is still influencing the world, al-Qaeda still affects the Middle East everyday. There is no less terrorism now than when Bush was elected.
S3nd K3ys
edallica wrote:

this guy is clearly on the wind up and shouldn't be permitted to go on like he does. the mannor in which this person posts in this type of topic is clearly ment to upset people. 50,000 terrorists? how the hell can you come up with a figure like that?!


That's awsome, edallica! You don't want me to speak. Because either you don't like what I say (I usually research topics before I dive into them), or you just can't handle someone else being able to speak their mind.

The supression of free speach continues!



The numbers of terrorists came from the Brookings Institute. Muslim/Islamic terrorists have been doing this for a long, long time. Long before the US started intervening in other countries after the world became such a small place after WWII due to technology.

Bondings wrote:
With clean, I mean that you shouldn't give terrorists reasons to hate you.
With clean, I mean stick with the ideals of freedom, liberty and justice. Always and for everyone. No exceptions.
With clean, I mean help and build instead of destroy(war).


The following is from "The Life of Muhammad", page 212, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar.

At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those who do not worship Allah. (That's the same basic reference I've also seen in quotes from the Q'ran.) So Bondings, it would appear that by 'clean', you mean to surrender to islam and start worshiping Alah.

Thanks but no thanks. (I'm sure Israel feels the same way)

Quote:
"THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT



The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.



When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]

The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."


Methinks a bit more research on the history of Islam and Terrorism is in orfer.

Wink
SunburnedCactus
Smacks of Bush's statement about the One True God. And in fact the whole Crusades (anyone remember those?) where Christians were sent to defeat the infidels of a certain other religion...
Bondings
S3nd K3ys wrote:
The numbers of terrorists came from the Brookings Institute. Muslim/Islamic terrorists have been doing this for a long, long time. Long before the US started intervening in other countries after the world became such a small place after WWII due to technology.

Sure. Until not so long ago, the same terrorists were funded by the US to fight the communists.

By the way, where does the brookings institute mention the 50.000 terrorists killed in Iraq?
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:


Sure. Until not so long ago, the same terrorists were funded by the US to fight the communists.

By the way, where does the brookings institute mention the 50.000 terrorists killed in Iraq?


Like that's never happened before.

http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

..and here. (I think the numbers from above include detainees, but the number of detanees to killed is low.)



You would do yourself good to read as much of the Iraq Index as you can.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
That's awsome, edallica! You don't want me to speak. Because either you don't like what I say (I usually research topics before I dive into them), or you just can't handle someone else being able to speak their mind.

The supression of free speach continues!




Ah! lecturing people on tolerant debates, are we ?
I just happen to have a very fine example of that -
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
...blah blah blah...


Shr3dd, did you hear something? Oh, never mind. Wink

That was awesome, S3nd K3ys !
That is how you treat free speech.
Clearly, you don't like what I say and you just cannot handle someone else putting forth their point.




Now coming onto the part where you claim that you research a topic before you start spitting your propaganda all around -
S3nd K3ys wrote:
No, Bondings. We killed over 50,000 terrorists.

No, S3nd K3ys. We did not.
Now we all know of your "unbiased" sources of information.
But this time you might actually have had a point.
The figure of 50,000 dead or captured was actually claimed by a former deputy chief of staff for the Army, General Jack Keane.

However, even he obliged to make the distinction between "50000 dead or captured insurgents" and "50000 dead terrorists".
Quote:
"we have killed or captured 50,000 insurgents"
<...>
"Does that mean all of them are terrorists or still being held? Probably not.". he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050726-121818-8711r.htm

You, however, after your "research", declare that they were indeed 50000 dead terrorists.
Which is understandable because you'd like us to believe that this unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is actually a war against terrorism.

So what if you lie ? you are still free to speak.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...
That was awesome, S3nd K3ys !
That is how you treat free speech.
Clearly, you don't like what I say and you just cannot handle someone else putting forth their point.



Reading and comprehension is key. I did not say you should not voice your opinion. I did not say you should not be allowed to continue. I did say I wasn't going to listen to it because it often seems skewed.

There's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

Oh, and...

Quote:
..and here. (I think the numbers from above include detainees, but the number of detanees to killed is low.)
Wink
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
US started intervening in other countries
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So Bondings, it would appear that by 'clean', you mean to surrender to islam and start worshiping Alah.

Thanks but no thanks. (I'm sure Israel feels the same way)

You as an American must not have realized it, but you cannot have it both ways S3nd K3ys.
You can either intervene in other's affairs, or you can be at peace with them.

I'll give you an example -
Have China or India "surrendered" to Islam ? NO
Do Chinese or Indian people worship Allah ? NO (ofcourse the muslims do)
Do they invade sovereign Muslim nations ? NO

Unfortunately, USA has "special interests" in the region which happens to be Islamic.
They need to ensure direct or indirect control over the governments in this region.
For this reason they need to intervene.
And for this reason they cannot be at peace with these nations.

When you intervene, don't these muslim countries have the right to say "Thanks but no thanks. " ?


I'm amused to see you use the term "surrender to Islam". Pardon me, but are you at war against Islam ?

If nothing else, you succeeded in displaying your hatred towards this religion.

S3nd K3ys wrote:

Islamic Religious Teachings

Methinks a bit more research on the history of Islam and Terrorism is in orfer.

Wink

Please don't add fuel to the religious flame war here, I can cite similar excerpts from the Bible as well.
And all that will help to prove, is that Christianity is no more tolerant of non-believers than Islam.
As SunburnedCactus said, why do youthinks that research is only needed on the history of Islam ?
Why not research Christianity and the crusades as well ?
edallica
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
...
That was awesome, S3nd K3ys !
That is how you treat free speech.
Clearly, you don't like what I say and you just cannot handle someone else putting forth their point.



Reading and comprehension is key. I did not say you should not voice your opinion. I did not say you should not be allowed to continue. I did say I wasn't going to listen to it because it often seems skewed.

There's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

Oh, and...

Quote:
..and here. (I think the numbers from above include detainees, but the number of detanees to killed is low.)
Wink


its not really fair that you are getting away with this this type of posting. suggesting that two in every 1000 iraqis is a terrorist absolutely outrageous. you shouldn't be able to get away with that.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I did not say___. I did not say___. I did say___.

Typical.
Reminds me of Bush and you trying to blame his lies on faulty intelligence.



But since you want to nitpick, I'll play along -

WordWeb wrote:
insurgent - A person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)

WordWeb wrote:
terrorist - A radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

As an example -
There were insurgents fighting the American army in Vietnam.
Were they terrorists ?

There's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

But as I said before, you're just trying to make us believe that American soldiers are actually fighting terrorists in Iraq.
Which again reminds me of Bush.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
..and here. (I think the numbers from above include detainees, but the number of detanees to killed is low.)
Wink

You hadn't posted this till I started writing my reply.
And you only admitted this when Bondings challenged your claim ?

Initially your claim was -
S3nd K3ys wrote:
We killed over 50,000 terrorists.




Oh, and...
the Brookings document you posted does not contain a reference to the term "terrorist".
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
US started intervening in other countries
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So Bondings, it would appear that by 'clean', you mean to surrender to islam and start worshiping Alah.

Thanks but no thanks. (I'm sure Israel feels the same way)

You as an American must not have realized it, but you cannot have it both ways S3nd K3ys.
You can either intervene in other's affairs, or you can be at peace with them.

I'll give you an example -
Have China or India "surrendered" to Islam ? NO
Do Chinese or Indian people worship Allah ? NO (ofcourse the muslims do)
Do they invade sovereign Muslim nations ? NO

Unfortunately, USA has "special interests" in the region which happens to be Islamic.
They need to ensure direct or indirect control over the governments in this region.
For this reason they need to intervene.
And for this reason they cannot be at peace with these nations.

When you intervene, don't these muslim countries have the right to say "Thanks but no thanks.

...



Good point. And well taken.

But (typically, from what I've seen) when the US gets involved with other countries, they don't try to promote their religion, only freedom and security. Look to Germany, Japan, Iraq etc.

I agree that's not the only reason, but it's no dark secret that the US has viable reasons for their interest in the ME, and it's not just about oil, it's also about freedom, and safety for surrounding countries.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...


Oh, and...
the Brookings document you posted does not contain a reference to the term "terrorist".


What would you call them? Freedom Fighters? The kind that TARGET WOMEN AND CHILDREN on a regular basis? Rolling Eyes
fayettemat
everything is only what you think about it for example i dont think that interracial marrages work cause i havent seen one that does but i had a very close friend who was a dffirent reace and to answer your oppion about this who doesnt attack christians these days!
voteforsamuel
I think that Bush was right to fight Osama and Suddam. Its important to realize that the president has access to a lot more knowledge than he can release to the public. Keep in mind that it was Osama and the Taban who started this war. America had no idea that he was planning any kind of attack on the US. The President did, and were it not for the confusion about the day, the hijacking never would have happened. It is quite possible that Suddam posed a serious threat to our nation that most of America has no idea about. Until information about this war is declassified, I will continue to support President Bush in the decisions he makes regarding this country.
S3nd K3ys
izcool wrote:
I do agree that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but George W. Bush was quoted with saying this on finding Osama Bin Laden :

Quote:
I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.


Doesn't care ? He's the person who was threatening to attack America (George W. Bush got a report a few days before it happened about how Osama was going to attack America by hijacking airplanes, he didn't read it, but instead, he went fishing) and he didn't take it seriously.

Think about it. Rolling Eyes

- Mike.


Ok, I thought about it.

OBL is not and has not been a viable part of the Taliban since we invaded Afghan. Therefore I see no reason to expend more resources than needed to find him. Now, at least with OBL, it's a matter of justice, not a matter of national security.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:

Sure. Until not so long ago, the same terrorists were funded by the US to fight the communists.



Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction.


Syria hiding Iraq WMDs
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

Money trail behind Kerry's Iran stance
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40744

Kerry would still supply Iran with nuclear fuel
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40740

Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Dutch Chemical Ali:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/28/113447.shtml



Top three suppliers of arms to Saddam Hussein, 1973 - 2002

USSR: 57%
* France: 13%
* China: 12%

Then, in order of importance:

* Czechoslovakia: 7%
* Poland: 4%
* Brazil: 2%
* Egypt: 1%
* Romania: 1%
* Denmark: 1%
* Libya: 1%

USA's sales -- 1 percent. None provided before or after the Iraq-Iran war.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf
Related topics
look at this
The downfall of american society
Troops in Iraq have to pay for armor?
Civilian Casualties in Iraq...
Hey
BUSH'S Poll Numbers Up
Does anyone believe that the U.S. is a corrupt government?
President bush
September 11 plotter Moussaoui, should he be executed?
Chemical Attacks - by US Forces // Impeach Bush
2,500 and still counting
American bashing
The Liberal Media
Saddam to be executed
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.